The IT Revolution: How Connectivity is Forcing CIOs to Seize Control of Physical Security

For decades, the realm of physical security systems — cameras, badge readers, and intrusion alarms — existed largely in isolation, managed at the periphery of the enterprise by facilities or dedicated security teams. But that insulated world is rapidly dissolving.

According to groundbreaking research from Greyhound Research, the surging involvement of IT teams in physical security isn’t a strategic power play; it’s a critical, forced response to the inextricable links these systems now share with core enterprise networks, cloud platforms, and complex compliance frameworks.

“CIOs haven’t suddenly developed an appetite for badge readers and camera feeds,” explains Sanchit Vir Gogia, Chief Analyst at Greyhound Research. “They’ve inherited them out of necessity.”

Connectivity Pulled Physical Security into IT’s Orbit

The undeniable turning point, Greyhound asserts, was connectivity. What were once closed, often analog systems have transformed into sophisticated IP-based platforms, residing directly on corporate networks and, increasingly, within public cloud environments.

Today, video surveillance systems are managed from the cloud, and access control platforms seamlessly integrate with Identity and Access Management (IAM) systems. This integration means physical security data is now stored, processed, and shared in ways that expose enterprises to the exact same regulatory, privacy, and cybersecurity risks as traditional IT systems.

This critical convergence has made physical security impossible for CIOs to overlook.

“We’re seeing real-world cases where camera footage is stored offshore, violating data residency laws,” Gogia warns. “Or badge systems that remain active for ex-employees because they weren’t linked to the HR offboarding process. These aren’t edge cases. They’re common.”

In such precarious scenarios, physical security morphs from a protective layer into a significant liability. Boards and auditors are now unequivocally expecting IT leadership to account for surveillance risks, access governance, and compliance exposure. When these pressing questions arise, ownership inevitably follows.

“If you can’t answer those questions,” Gogia emphasizes, “you’re not really running enterprise risk anymore.”

The Collapse of the Cyber-Physical Boundary

Greyhound’s research compellingly argues that the traditional distinction between cyber and physical security has lost its operational meaning. Attackers, regulators, and even internal auditors no longer differentiate between digital and physical entry points.

“The operational boundary between cyber and physical has collapsed,” Gogia states. “Attackers don’t care which door they use.”

This profound convergence has squarely pushed physical security into the same rigorous governance frameworks that already exist for IT systems. CIOs are increasingly held accountable for risks originating from cameras, access control platforms, and sensor networks, regardless of who historically managed them.

From Greyhound’s vantage point, IT ownership of physical security isn’t about control; it’s a fundamental act of self-defense.

“It’s not a power grab,” Gogia asserts. “It’s a response to exposure.”

A Different Way of Evaluating Security Projects

Once IT assumes ownership, the very methodology by which physical security projects are evaluated undergoes a fundamental transformation.

According to Greyhound Research, the conversation dramatically shifts away from mere device counts and coverage maps toward intricate architecture, seamless integration, and robust resilience. The questions CIOs now pose are no longer about where cameras are placed, but rather how data intelligently moves through the entire enterprise.

“Facilities teams talk coverage angles,” Gogia illustrates. “IT talks authentication protocols.”

This profound shift carries wide-ranging implications for vendors and system integrators alike. In IT-led deployments, basic hardware performance is no longer a sufficient differentiator. Systems must meticulously fit into broader, complex enterprise architectures.

Published APIs become mandatory. Access control systems must flawlessly integrate with Active Directory or enterprise IAM platforms. Cloud services are expected to offer meticulously documented failover and disaster recovery capabilities. Procurement teams demand comprehensive service-level agreements, not just basic warranties. And crucially, compliance teams require robust audit trails, far beyond simple raw storage capacity.

“In an IT-led model, you can’t approve a system that doesn’t integrate,” Gogia declares. “If it doesn’t fit into the ecosystem, it doesn’t survive.”

Compliance and Governance Now Drive Buying Decisions

Greyhound highlights that compliance considerations are increasingly outweighing traditional hardware specifications in critical buying decisions. Vendors who may lead on imaging performance or device durability could find themselves summarily excluded if they lack mature security governance processes.

Secure firmware update mechanisms, transparent vulnerability disclosure programs, and widely recognized certifications such as SOC 2 are rapidly becoming table stakes in IT-owned environments.

Physical security vendors are now being evaluated alongside established enterprise software providers, rather than solely against their peers in the surveillance market.

“This is where we see disconnects,” Gogia observes. “A vendor might be best-in-class on hardware, but if they don’t have a secure update process or can’t demonstrate compliance readiness, they’re out.”

For integrators, this irrevocably alters the competitive landscape. Winning a project increasingly hinges on demonstrating profound architectural competence and astute governance awareness, not just installation expertise.

Operational Expectations Are Rising

IT ownership also fundamentally changes how systems are expected to operate *after* deployment.

Traditional physical security models heavily relied on sporadic on-site maintenance and reactive service calls. IT teams, by stark contrast, expect real-time visibility into system health, sophisticated remote diagnostics, and rapid, proactive remediation.

“They want dashboards, version control, and the ability to patch vulnerabilities in hours,” Gogia states emphatically. “Not weeks.”

This heightened expectation forces both vendors and integrators to rapidly adapt. Security platforms are no longer static installations; they are dynamic operational systems that demand continuous monitoring, precise tuning, and comprehensive lifecycle management.

“You’re not just deploying infrastructure anymore,” Gogia explains. “You’re onboarding a system into an ecosystem with real dependencies.”

In practice, this means integrators are increasingly expected to support ongoing optimization, extending far beyond initial commissioning. Performance tuning, policy updates, and integration maintenance become integral components of the service model.

New Risks Emerge Alongside New Efficiencies

While IT ownership undeniably promises improved governance and heightened visibility, Greyhound cautiously warns that it also introduces new risks if not managed with extreme care.

Physical security systems carry real-world consequences that significantly differ from traditional IT assets. A misconfigured firewall might cause frustrating downtime. A misconfigured access control system, however, can dangerously lock employees out or compromise critical safety protocols.

Treating physical security purely as an IT platform without a deep understanding of operational realities can create dangerous blind spots.

“The risk is assuming that IT best practices automatically translate,” Gogia cautions. “They don’t always.”

Successful deployments therefore demand seamless collaboration between IT, security, and facilities teams. Greyhound’s research consistently shows that failures often occur when invaluable physical security expertise is sidelined, rather than thoughtfully integrated into the new governance model.

What This Means for System Integrators

For system integrators, the inexorable shift toward IT ownership represents both a significant threat and an unparalleled opportunity.

Integrators who persist in positioning themselves primarily as mere installers risk being marginalized. Conversely, those who can skillfully translate complex operational requirements into robust technical architectures stand to gain immense influence much earlier in the project lifecycle.

Greyhound passionately argues that integrators must evolve across three pivotal areas: mastering enterprise IT architectures, actively engaging in intricate workflow and policy design, and comprehensively supporting systems throughout their entire operational lifespan.

“The integrator who only knows cameras will struggle,” Gogia predicts. “The integrator who understands how security fits into enterprise operations will win.”

This profound evolution also profoundly affects commercial models. Managed services, continuous optimization, and strategic advisory roles become increasingly vital as projects move away from one-time, transactional deployments.

A Structural Shift, Not a Passing Trend

Greyhound Research emphatically views IT ownership of physical security not as a temporary phase, but as a permanent, structural shift. The powerful forces driving it – ubiquitous connectivity, stringent compliance demands, and critical risk consolidation – are deeply embedded and irreversible.

As physical systems generate ever more data and integrate increasingly deeply with enterprise platforms, CIO involvement will continue to grow exponentially. For vendors and integrators, adapting to this new reality is no longer optional; it is essential for survival and success.

“This shift wasn’t planned,” Gogia concludes. “But it’s not reversible either.”

For the entire physical security industry, the pressing question is no longer *whether* IT will be involved, but rather *how effectively* all stakeholders will adapt to a world where physical security is governed, evaluated, and operated with the same rigor as any other critical enterprise system.